The N word...

Given what's happening, I think it's time to bring it up.
Probably the most hated word in America.
I'm talking, of course, about Nationalization.
I recently posted a photo and comment on Facebook, asking what would change when the oil slick reaches the beaches of the Hamptons. A friend responded, saying she hoped that then we'd finally see some action.

Caution-beach

IMO it's hard to fault the post-accident actions so far, at least on the government side.
From the White House, "20,000 people working around the clock to contain and clean up this spill...17,500 National Guard troops, 1,900 vessels are aiding in the containment and cleanup effort... convened hundreds of top scientists and engineers from around the world. This is the largest response to an environmental disaster of this kind in the history of our country."
What's lacking is good policies to avoid this kind of accident in the first place. 
What I hope will change is the sensitivity when the people with power, money, and fancy beach houses realize they're living in the same environment as the rest of us, the unwashed masses and pelicans. Then we might see some real long-term policy changes. Like a carbon tax that really hurts, serious regulation or even partial nationalization of energy industries.
Nearly every grain in my free-market, MBA'd soul dismisses this instinctively. But there's a little bell in the back of my head that puts in question this gut reaction against even partial government control. That bell becomes an alarm when the obvious failures of soft-regulated free enterprise pop up before my eyes, or wash up over our bare, sandy feet.

Egret-over-oil

I'm not talking about ending the capitalist system. However, there are some companies that, by the nature of their business, are so vast, or deal with such levels of risk to the wider public, that we all become stakeholders in their activity. Energy is an obvious example, with the BP accident a perfect case study.

BP-Transocean-Haliburton-testify

These guys, for example, do not feel beholden to anybody but their bosses, and by extension, their boards and shareholders. But that does not mean the public interest is necessarily considered. The BP spill proves the contrary.
Clearly the current stockholders of those companies have not made their companies act with a sense of this wider responsibility. And it's not their fault. The system is not designed for them to act beyond their own financial interest, nor is the company really motivated to explain to them, much less the wider public, what the larger risks might be.
As a Democrat, I've always believed that it is the responsibility of the government to step in to defend the public good if no other market entities will do so. This failure in the current system could be addressed by the government taking a stake as shareholder in these companies and, linked with regulatory agencies, making sure that the interests of all stakeholders were represented, shareholders and the greater public.
It's time to bring the voices of future generations of people, and wildlife into boardrooms and annual meetings, where the current system has failed. Partial nationalization would do that. 

   

 

Comments

[jebuff]

Photos - Chris Bickford, New York Times; Charlie Reidel, Associated Press;  Tim Sloan, Associated France-Press/Getty Images. All from a New York Times slide-show here: http://nyti.ms/cJWpFx 

[Kimberly J. Koch]

[this is good] This is not a bad idea.  I think I will have to think about it and then put into perspective for myself, though.  I specifically think in the US where the president, senators, governors, etc. are elected regularly it would be ok, as long as we could prevent one sided actions, interests, and increased lobbying of our politicians thus corrupting an already corrupt system.  I think our two party political system is a major down fall to our system.  I am not so sure for instance that the Democrats really do incorporate the voices of the blue collar workers anymore.    

[Kimberly J. Koch]

[this is good] I think this would be good for public transportation also.  A Nationalized Transportation system would make things more equal across the land allowing all people access to better jobs, markets, etc.  For instance, in very poor neighborhoods where they raise the prices of food and such after Mother's Day as they call it, which is really the day after they receive their welfare checks it would allow them to go to the stores with the best prices thus stop the age old problem of locking them into their own neighborhoods. 

Also, a nationalized train system here in America would take away from the problem of all the pollution that comes from motor vehicles.  I have tried to take the bus to the university as to avoid driving and I ended up standing.  It is an hour trip and I ended up in the door well of the bus, almost every time.  I believe this should be addressed definitely.  They could at least have more than one bus coming at the same time if there is a need.  I would think it would be a given if the demand is there but it does not seem to follow through.  

I thought maybe this is just the other side of nationalizing the energy (oil, electric, etc.).  The other good thing about nationalizing all energy is that it would be a more even playing field as we advance into a ever dwindling supply of it in the future.  In a capitalist society the energy will go to those best able to pay for it.  Better now than things get really bad.  



Perhaps the women who marched to Versailles should be remembered here since their first draw was their need for bread for their children, but their needs got ever more complex as time went by.  As their working days got longer with industrialization coming into France, more was expected from them, and coffee became a need too.  



Coffee was needed because it was dangerous for them to fall asleep in the factories they were working in.  If they did not work again they could not feed their children.  So, taking one step further what happens when a mother cannot get to her job because there is no affordable gas station.  I think the nation needs to think about these things because ultimately our needs are tied to survival.  

[Cryin' for the Dyin']

Hello..An interesting, if old, premise.  I found it mildly amusing that the first reaction of BP was to save the oil.  This in the face of many considered stats that make the environment the greatest threat to life on this planet, as we know it, save nuclear winter. 

I did spend some time going back and forth on this spill with a retired engineer.  He spent decades purifying fresh water of sludge and other things that harm the quality of water and of course the life forms that are affected by extension to benefit or be harmed by that quality of the water.

There really are no easy answers.  It seems that with all the resources available..so many hands in research..so many hands in publicity..how many hands are actually dealing with the problem?  How many people are down there taking oil out of the water?  I, of course, do see how the ways available, the amount of people required to do that, are inherently open to a lot of political mish mosh.  (I find it a travesty that no one thought, in anticipation of what almost had to be, to design a machine that altered the chemical structure of damaged water)  The ways available to 'repair' the water..are, near as I can determine, very small to that purpose, requiring one person for each 500 ft or so of gulf coastline. 

Any time somone uses the word 'nationalism' I look at it with a predictable caution.  In the last decade, or so, we have seen the results of the 'worst sides of nationalism'.  This simply is not a poltical matter.  It would be nice if the government would get on board..or do with the resources they have..as you suggest.  It is a matter of staying in context.  

The redundant nature of politics..though easy to comprehend..is infuriating.  It leaves time for the greedy and self serving types..in situations demanding great, immediate, response, to put their '2 cents in' in anticipation of a great reward.  The examples are too numerous, as well as obvious to mention, historically.

Peace Tony

[jebuff]

Thanks for your comments. Tony, agree with most of what you said about the clean up. One of those simple, pesky regulatory principles that has eluded us is simply, "If you want us to allow you to do something, what ever you do, if it goes wrong, you should be able to clean it up". Would have worked for banks that got to be "too big to fail", would have worked for BP.
There are some new technologies on trial right now down in the Gulf, but those trials should have been funded by BP as a condition for their license before they began digging.
Agree with you on the word "nationalism".
My word is "nationalization", but only partially, in balance with the level of public interest in the company's activity.

[xmangerm]

[this is good] Interesting read. Thanks

[Cryin' for the Dyin']

Hello..I apologize for the misread..thank you for the correction..nationalization is different of course..

In a situation such as the gulf spill..there are too many diversions in those who would experiment and try to learn how.  Making the money at what they know is fine.  I think that learning should continue..I do not think thay should wait..at the expense of living tissue being exterminated.  The cleanup..of course..can be done. 

I have seen a serious cross section of people..some experienced and educated..some both..I think the only thing that needs be addressed in a situation of this type..is qualification and seriousness of direction and intent.  If I had the resource this would be done..or in the process.  Here comes the necessity of politics..to tone down and work with corporated..not join them. 

Be that as it is..I have added you to my cyberhood also..and will be around.

Peace Tony

[Emmi]

There were policies in place, though. There were. I can't emphasize that enough. Government-wise, this is Obama's fault for nominating Ken Salazar, who is in the pocket of ranchers and big oil. He did not require an environmental review of BP for the Gulf of Mexico. You know darned well if he did, the evil jerks never would have been allowed to go near it.

You're right about stiffer laws not helping, however as we've seen with the Amazon rainforest, it's about enforcement of the laws already on the books. I am extremely skeptical about people seeing it with their own eyes; they're all screaming and crying "livelihood" now, because it's hitting them in the wallet. But the pelicans and gannets can rot in hell so far as they're concerned, because all we Americans are selfish, greedy fools.

[jebuff]

The policies under which BP received their permission to drill were made for shallow water drilling, too weak to begin with, and never reviewed and strengthened for the deep water. All pre-Obama. He wasn't about to put those regs in question with a review upon arriving in the WH, having inherited one of the biggest economic catastrophes ever in America, with gas & oil prices already wildly fluctuating. Politics is about compromise, and nothing made anybody expect that this crisis would arrive when it would have cost him too much capital to confront it.
The point of my post is that soft-regulation does not work, and company shareholders do not act as the conscience of the companies in which they invest. Stronger regulations from less friendly regulators can help keep companies in line, and the government having a stake in the kind of firms could reinforce their compliance. The small scale fishermen and other blue-color Gulf workers are not responsible for this disaster will suffer most from it, and their relatively poor circumstances do not give them the luxury of asking wider questions about the environment. I don't blame them for that.  

[Emmi]

Of course I agree with the point of your post, and I get it. I just think a few things are missing in the media and are escaping the attention of the American public.

 and nothing made anybody expect that this crisis would arrive when it would have cost him too much capital to confront it.

How's that working out now? Of course we could have seen it coming, if Obama knew that Salazar wouldn't bother with an environmental review at all. Then soft or hard regs are pretty irrelevant, aren't they? If Obama didn't know what his own employees were doing, well that doesn't let him off the hook.

I totally sympathize with the fishermen and everyone who lives there. But to blithely say it just needs to be cleaned up is a bit silly; this isn't spilled milk. Oil is insanely difficult to clean up from the ocean.

And the ones who are suffering the most are the marine animals. And the families of the people who got blown up.